Library 2.0 Concept Model

Highly interesting post by Michael Habib including a concept model for Library 2.0 in academic libraries.

My only criticism is that this model is too library-centric. I believe that many, maybe most, connections between/among the “academic” and the “social” occur without library mediation and these interactions need to be taken into account in the Library 2.0 paradigm.

If Library 2.0 is going to be a model for anything, it has to include the introspective account that “Library” is not even (and never will be) close to the centre of most people’s daily lives.

3 thoughts on “Library 2.0 Concept Model”

[…] The Other Librarian has an interesting criticism of Michael Habib’s revised Academic Library 2.0 Model – that it is too library-centric. This is a good point. The Other Librarian writes that “If Library 2.0 is going to be a model for anything, it has to include the introspective account that “Library” is not even (and never will be) close to the centre of most people’s daily lives.” I think that this is a point that we must all remember. From a conceptual standpoint however, I think that we need to have the library in the middle of this model. Those of us trying to . . . (Dramatic aside – In the middle of typing this post, a big, scary bat did a dive bomb at my head in my living room. I had to call my husband to come home and capture it. By the way, I get the all bugs and sometimes the mice and he gets the bats – quite equitable. This is the second bat in the house this week. You might be quite right if you think I’m not sleeping too well this week. – end of dramatic aside) […]

Two points. First, by focusing on how a typical student might experience the blend of academic and social around them, I was hoped to create a model that was patron centric. The model focuses on the social and academic interactions that a students have and the places they have them.

Second, it is my argument that some of the places that inhabit a center ground are in fact located in the library (or on the libraries website). By no means am I suggesting the library is the only middle ground, but it is the one that we are in the business of. Jennifer summed it up nicely in her statement:

“I think that this is a point that we must all remember. From a conceptual standpoint however, I think that we need to have the library in the middle of this model. Those of us trying to . . .
…Those of us trying to apply the concepts of library 2.0 to our library services are starting from the library. The library is what we have to work with.”

Thanks for making these points. It is important to point out that we must look outside the library for good ideas. For example, lots of academic interactions take place on the largely social facebook. However, it is possible that libraries could provide a more suitable environment for some of these interactions. The model is supposed to get us brainstorming on these connections. I am glad that is what it made you think of. I look forward to hearing more of your views on these topics. I think that the concept model of library 2.0 in general that I am working on might speak to some of your criticisms.

I have always been a little concerned that the model isn’t obviously patron-centric as students lie outside the model as observers. Maybe I should change the title to “Academic Library 2.0 Concept Model: A student’s perspective.” Again, thanks for your comments.

Thanks for the response, Michael. I think you do an excellent job in the model, but I still contend that “Those of us trying to apply the concepts of library 2.0 to our library services are starting from the library. The library is what we have to work with” is just simply not thinking big enough.

For example, what about Google? Librarians cannot engage Library 2.0 without an honest understanding of the role Google plays in this game. In fact, a person could argue that Google _is_ Library 2.0. Libraries are involved in things like digitization projects, but I wouldn’t say that are at the centre.

Then there’s Writely, GoogleSpreadsheets and Gliffy. And Wikipedia. What I’m saying is that there are a wide range of things that play into Library 2.0 that are not social, academic or library.

The other concern I have is that the model reflects on existing tools, rather than digging more into the customer experience. As a student, I didn’t care that there was a such thing as an “information commons,” but I did care that I could get access to productivity software and the Internet (and to a lesser degree, when I was forced, to databases and journal articles).

I think there is a need (perhaps) for a corresponding model that reflects on what a “library 2.0” experience is for students (or patrons or customers or whatever). That way we can create or advocate for new 2.0 tools that create this experience, rather than just going for the old standbys. If we are going to adapt to change, we are going to have to predict services as well as identify them.